Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Oral evidence: Air quality: follow-up, HC 509

Tuesday 6 July 2021

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 6 July 2021.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Neil Parish (Chair); Ian Byrne; Geraint Davies; Rosie Duffield; Barry Gardiner; Dr Neil Hudson; Robbie Moore; Mrs Sheryll Murray; Julian Sturdy; Derek Thomas.

Questions 1 - 75 Witnesses

I: Rebecca Pow MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Bill Parish, Head of Air Quality and Industrial Emissions, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (via video link).

Examination of witnesses

Witnesses: Rebecca Pow MP and Bill Parish.

Q1 Chair: Welcome to the EFRA Select Committee. We are talking about air quality today. We have the Minister Rebecca Pow and Bill Parish with us. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the record, please? Rebecca Pow: I am Rebecca Pow and I am the Environment Minister at DEFRA.

Bill Parish: Good afternoon. I am Bill Parish. I am deputy director for air quality and industrial emissions at DEFRA.

Q2 Chair: As far as I am aware, we do not have to declare an interest, because I do not think we are related. You are very much welcome, Bill. Minister, why will you not commit to meeting the World Health Organization’s PM2.5 target of 10 micrograms by 2030? What is the hold- up? Rebecca Pow: I am very pleased to be speaking to your Committee again, following on from the previous hearing not very many months ago. I will give the same answer I probably gave then. Whilst obviously we take this extremely seriously and the PM2.5 is of the greatest concern for human health, as we have said all along, we have to get this target absolutely right. The figure that the WHO has stated is a guide. They fully understand the route that we are taking, because actually we are acting by their guidelines, which is to take all the evidence and advice and have a clear pathway and plan to setting our target. That is what we are doing. That is what we have absolutely committed to through the Environment Bill with the dates we have set. We have been taking evidence from a great many sources on how to actually set this target. We will be coming up with what our thinking is by September.

A huge amount of modelling is going on. In fact, even more modelling and collating of data since we last spoke, which I can tell you a little about later, if you would like to know about that. Then we have to go right around Government to get the support of all the other departments on exactly what this target should be. Then we will consult, and we will be consulting in early 2022. Then we will actually set the target, and everyone will know what the target is, as we have said all along, by 31 October 2022.

In fairness, we might find out that we want to set it lower than the WHO guidelines. We are completely open to what it might be. All of the experts will tell you the same story. I am sure you have had them before your Committee. I meet them; I met with a whole load of them last week.

Q3 Chair: What I would say to you, Rebecca, is that you came before and said, “We might even set higher standards”, but the problem is we have all sorts of standards set and targets to go for net zero. We have talked about actually bringing forward the banning of diesel and petrol cars. Yet

now, all of a sudden, we have to do a lot of talking to people before we can set any targets. Why is it so different with air quality than it is with many other aspects of environment? As I have said to you before, air quality is probably the one thing that really directly affects people’s day- to-day lives. That is why I am concerned. We could say, given the fact that you are not going to set it until October 2022, that there is a lack of urgency. Would it be unkind to say that to you? Rebecca Pow: That would be totally unkind. You are absolutely right that this affects everybody’s daily lives. Also, you say, “Why can we not just do it tomorrow? Other people are taking action”. It is because it is not as straightforward as, for example, just changing fuel in a car. It is very complicated. Whatever expert you speak to, they will tell you the same thing. Professor Alastair Lewis, who I believe you heard from in your last inquiry, is on our air quality expert group. He will tell you it is not just as straightforward as writing down a number on a line. We have to get this right.

Also, you have named a lot of other things that will impact this: how we get to net zero, what we are doing with cars and how climate change can change. All of these things have to be factored in. In our modelling, there has been some really complicated modelling on all of these different inputs, to try to see if we can come up with the right target. DEFRA consulted on this back in July 2019 and, although it came up with saying that it was potentially technically feasible, we have to have the pathway to get there. That is what we were absolutely determined to be working on.

I am going to take issue with you about the lack of urgency, because we have already introduced a great many things that will already be helpful to us. We have already introduced that ban on burning of coal and wet wood in households. We introduced that in May this year. That is since our last meeting. We have brought a whole raft of measures to show that we are working on it.

Q4 Chair: Sorry, Minister; we will not go into wood, because we have a question about that later. It is just the principle, as far as I am concerned. I will throw your words back at you. Why is it we can set a target for net zero, albeit further away, but yet we cannot set a target for air quality? Is it actually simple to get to net zero and more complicated to deal with air quality? The two do not quite chime together and we are trying to work out why. I know you are telling me you are consulting, but surely we are consulting on net zero, are we not, and yet we have set a target for that? You then tempt us with the fact that you might set an even tighter target, and yet you have not consulted, so you cannot actually tell us that, can you? Where are we? Rebecca Pow: We did one consultation in 2019. We are working on the next one. As I have told you, we will be coming up with a target in September and we will be consulting again in early spring. The point is that we are taking dual action. We are setting a target for concentration

and we are setting a population exposure target. Both of these things are extremely technical and extremely complicated. I would reiterate again that both of those expert teams, which are both independent—the air quality expert group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, which are filled with expert scientists and academics—support the pathway that we are taking. We have to take their advice.

The net zero target is 2050, whereas we are actually looking at a date much closer to us than that. I would say we would be irresponsible if we did not take this clear pathway. I am very happy to bring Bill Parish in. We talk about this at great length. Even last week, I had Professor Alastair Lewis in, and Professor Frank Kelly on the medical side, and I have spoken to Professor Stephen Holgate. All of those experts agree with the steps that we are taking, because we have to be responsible.

Q5 Chair: The World Health Organization says we should hit this particular target. Many other countries are doing it. Why is it so much more difficult for us? Rebecca Pow: I have to take slight issue again. I am not sure that many other countries are doing it. As far as I understand, I do not know of any other industrial country doing anything like what we are considering, and certainly not considering a population exposure target. What we are considering with the 10 micrograms per cubic metre is way lower than what the EU has set. We are leaders in this, which is why we are also determined that we have to get it right, because there are going to be some very difficult decisions for society to make when this target is set.

We have to make sure that we have consulted widely so that we bring people with us, because there are going to be some very difficult decisions to make about, for example, whether you halve the number of vehicles used. There is a whole range of issues. Do you just stop all burning of barbeques and street markets and street food? All of these things will have to be considered. They are not easy by any manner of means. We are certainly not ducking out of any of it. I would say we have actually gone up a gear in terms of all the work that we are doing behind the scenes. Could I bring Bill in?

Q6 Chair: Just before you do, I just want to correct you: Scotland actually amended the regulation in 2016, setting an objective of achieving an annual mean of 10 micrograms of PM2.5 by 31 December 2020. We have to check they have actually met that target. Rebecca Pow: I wonder how that is going. You should check that out.

Q7 Chair: You cannot argue that nobody has actually set one. Rebecca Pow: In my view, there needs to be a clear pathway of how to actually get there. Indeed, there are so many other factors. For example, we are influenced by industrial pollution coming over from Europe, and we cannot control that. There are lots of things out of our control, so we

have to get right what is within our control. That is what we are working on with all of our modelling.

Q8 Chair: You could argue that Scotland is further away from Europe than Dover is. Rebecca Pow: It is. London has a lot of impacts. London and the south- east have a lot of impacts from pollution that we simply have not created ourselves in this country.

Q9 Chair: You will have less control over what happens the other side of the Channel than you will have here. I am hoping that we will not actually see any delay to this long period until October 2022. Rebecca Pow: It is a legal commitment.

Q10 Chair: There have been commitments before and afterwards. Bill, over to you. Bill Parish: Just to add a bit of context in terms of the challenge for the south-east, and in particular London, we published a modelled transect of the background PM2.5 concentrations, starting at the north of Scotland and then progressing down to Dover. The challenge for Scotland is a lot less than for England, partly because of the lower population density and fewer big cities, but also being much further away from the continental influence of particulate pollution coming from the continent.

On London and the south-east, if you were to treat London as a desert island and took away the millions of people who live in London, you would have a background particulate pollution level of six micrograms. If you were then to put those millions of people back into London, you would be asking them to live their lives in a way that meant the overall contribution of transport, industry and all sorts of economic activities in everyday life only released four micrograms per year, in addition to that six-microgram background. We must not underestimate the technical and societal challenges in achieving the 10-microgram limit suggested by the WHO.

Therefore, we are currently doing a lot of modelling with Imperial College and many other collaborators to investigate several scenarios and to investigate how low it is actually possible to go, and what interventions you would need to make, across the whole country, not just in London, in order to achieve different levels of PM2.5 reduction. When that modelling is complete, in order to secure collective agreement about what levels we would actually consult on in the new year, we then need to assess what the costs are, together with the public health benefits, through an impact assessment.

The process continues at pace. It is also extremely challenging for the modelling teams to build in a lot of different scenarios and a lot of different measures in combination.

Q11 Chair: In Kent, I imagine the level would still be around six micrograms, would it? Then perhaps in Cornwall or in the north of England it would be substantially less. I can understand the scale and the size of the city, but what is the general level of pollution and the air quality across the counties? Bill Parish: The average particulate concentration across the whole of the UK is about 9.3. The particulate concentrations in Cornwall and the West Country are low until you get to a city like Bristol. In the north of England, the particulate concentrations are generally very low. We have modelled a background overall pollution level of just over 10 micrograms in Leeds, which is a big city. The overall trend is that the further south- east you go, across the whole of the UK, the background increases.

Q12 Chair: You are saying that quite a lot of that is due to the pollution coming from the continent. Is that what you are saying? Bill Parish: It is a combination of a much higher population density and concentration of towns and cities in the south-east compared to the rest of the country. It is also that we have to factor in the continental influence.

To give one example, during lockdown last year, between the period of April and June, we measured a significant decline in nitrogen dioxide emissions because road traffic levels declined significantly. We did not notice or measure a similar reduction in particulate matter, because so many other sources of everyday activity contribute to those particulate matter concentrations. It happened that over that period, April to June, there was a very strong easterly wind influence, where we had winds blowing from the east to the south-east. They were increasing our overall background concentrations. It was not until the end of June that our prevailing south-westerly winds started to become more prevalent and the south-westerly winds started to disperse that pollution and we started to see a drop in particulate matter.

That was a good illustration that, first of all, particulate matter comes from more sources than just transport, but also of how where the wind blows and what the weather conditions are doing plays a significant influencing role in overall particulate matter concentrations.

Q13 Barry Gardiner: I am really grateful to Bill Parish for the way in which he set out the different parts of the country so clearly, particularly as a London MP. Minister, I understand that you are trying to get this right. I trust you may have actually been on the North Circular, the A406, and seen the sorts of levels of PM2.5 that my constituents have to put up with coming off the North Circular there. You have talked in the Environment Bill about the requirement to set a target for the annual mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air. That is not going to, as far as it is in the Environment Bill, be able to make the sort of distinctions that people living in my constituency along the North Circular are going to feel are relevant to

them, because it is going to disguise the higher rates that they are experiencing into this general mean level of ambient air. Can you tell us how you propose to make this relevant to people living on the A406 and how they are going to be able to see the impact of your policies differentially impacting on reducing the risk that they are exposed to, rather than just generally bringing down the whole of the ambient air mean level below that 10-microgram level? That is what is really important to people. Rebecca Pow: Yes, you are absolutely right about that. That is why we are also going to have another target, which is the exposure target. That will be exposure, i.e. to a certain amount of PM2.5 per X number of population. That will be the bit that really will make the difference to your constituents, along with all the other things that we are linking it up with, such as the local air quality action plans. We are strengthening a lot of that through the Environment Bill. That is where we can really get to grips with the bits that you are talking about; you are absolutely right that they are so important, together with upping all the monitoring, so that you know exactly what the situation is in your constituency.

Q14 Barry Gardiner: Are you going to deliver on what the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, promised in 2019, which was to “ensure our Environment Bill includes a legally binding commitment on particulate matter so that no part of the country exceeds the levels recommended by the WHO”? It seems to me that the way it has been phrased as an annual mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air moves away from that commitment. If you are telling me now that, no, you want to honour that commitment that no part of the country will experience higher levels, then I really welcome that. I would like your assurance that is the case. Rebecca Pow: That is why there is also an exposure target in the Bill: to tackle exactly what you are talking about. We do not want just an average for the whole country, with some people still living in horrible, over-polluted areas and others being fine. That is what we have now. We are trying to sort it out, which is why we have our clean air strategy. It links to all the other pollutants as well, which are very relevant.

Q15 Barry Gardiner: Minister, I am just seeking a very simple, “Yes, we are committed to honour what Michael Gove promised”. Rebecca Pow: I have clarified it. We are committed to the two targets that we are setting through the Bill. Again, if you want Bill to back me up on this so that you are sure, then I am happy to bring him in.

Q16 Barry Gardiner: A commitment from a civil servant does not have quite the same power as a commitment from the Minister. Rebecca Pow: No, but that is why we have the two targets—the average and then the exposure. Indeed, when Mr Gove was here, that exposure target was not in the Bill. This is a new thing.

Q17 Barry Gardiner: He said it must be. He said they would ensure it would

be. Rebecca Pow: This is a new thing that we have committed to.

Q18 Barry Gardiner: Bill Parish, thank you again for the way in which you articulated what you said, but you spoke about the background PM2.5 emissions, and yet we know that some of the PM2.5 emissions are far more toxic than others. The RCP says that particulate matter from fresh diesel emission is far more toxic than geologically derived or even secondary particles. Do we need a more sophisticated approach that targets the more dangerous types of PM2.5, the anthropogenic ones, rather than those background ones, and rather than simply looking at all PM2.5 levels as if PM2.5s are all the same, because health-wise they are clearly not? Bill Parish: The particulate matter is extremely diverse, as you have pointed out. We can only take action on anthropogenic sources, rather than the natural ones, but the advice is that at the moment we do not know enough about the differential toxicity between different groups of particulates. The advice is also that the total particulate matter, whatever the source is, is important from a health perspective. COMEAP will publish advice on this later this month, because we have asked these very questions of the experts.

As the evidence grows, that does not stop us improving our approach and targeting those sources of particulate matter that we know are more toxic. Roadside emissions from vehicles are rich cocktails of many different substances we do not know a lot about. Dealing with the exhaust pipe emissions over time will help by reducing the number of internal combustion engines. We still have the challenge of brakes and tyres and understanding what particulates are released by those.

An example where we have taken specific action on a source of a harmful smoke is our banning of coal for domestic combustion, because the World Health Organization advises that smoke from coal is carcinogenic. Even if the total quantity released per year from domestic combustion from burning coal is relatively small, from a health perspective, in local concentrations with those who are burning coal, it really matters. That is why we included coal in our recent measures to ban the sale of wet wood and coal for domestic combustion.

As the evidence emerges, we will have opportunities to target more, but the advice from the experts in COMEAP is that the total mass of particulates is still significant, and it matters.

Q19 Barry Gardiner: Thank you very much for setting out the complexity of the issue in the way that you have. Given what you have said about the reduction of tailpipe emissions over time, I would seek an assurance that, in talking about setting an annual mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air in the Environment Bill, you are not, as it were, setting a target that you know you can meet because over time we will be moving to non-fossil-

fuel vehicles and therefore the overall mean will come down. There needs to be a very strong element of the strategy that is focused on delivering, in localities where it is high, for the health of what are usually the poorest people in the area, because they are the ones that invariably live along the most polluted roads, inevitably. It is really trying to get an assurance from you that the strategy will focus on this in a laser-like way, rather than muddying things in a general mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air. Bill Parish: This is why we have adopted a commitment to develop a population exposure reduction target. First, there is always a risk with having a simple limit value that future authorities might game it slightly in order to achieve compliance. What really matters is focusing the interventions where the most people live. That is why we have a population exposure reduction target, because, as the World Health Organization tells us, there is actually no safe limit for long-term exposure to particulate matter. We are using the population exposure reduction target to continue driving action around the country, even if a reduced limit value has already been reached.

For example, if a local authority was already enjoying air quality at below 10 micrograms and had just one or two hotspots, we would still want them to continue taking action to reduce as far as possible pollution from sources where lots of people live, particularly those in more vulnerable communities. Through our revised UK air quality strategy, which we also have to revise in the Environment Bill, we need to change the way that we are working in local authorities, to equip them with the ability to identify where vulnerable groups or communities live and to focus the interventions on where people are being exposed to pollution, rather than playing a compliance game.

Barry Gardiner: Thank you for the breadth and the comprehensiveness of your answer. Minister, thank you. I really do take on board your bona fides in this area. I know that it is something that concerns you and I hope that you will really drive down in the areas that we can, to make sure that what we all want in this area is delivered. Q20 Geraint Davies: Minister, can I ask you briefly about how the Government are balancing up air quality with economic costs? We have heard in the past that the cost of air pollution is something like £20 billion a year to health costs and lost productivity, and it kills in the region of 64,000 people prematurely. Up to 10% of Covid extra deaths are caused by air pollution. I am just wondering what sort of conversations you have had with Treasury about how to factor in these costs against the cost of compliance. Rebecca Pow: We have to undertake the cost-benefit analysis as per the guidance in the Green Book, which is issued by Treasury, about how to actually conduct a programme. Whatever we come up with has to be analysed and costed in the right way. That is done under a number of

different scenarios so that one can test out some of these things you are actually talking about and factor in what you are gaining.

Q21 Geraint Davies: I am just wondering whether you are aware if the Treasury is doing any sophisticated work on modelling this to see what gains it can get from improving air quality and then increasing productivity and tax take while reducing health costs, or is it just basically left to DEFRA? How is the Department of Health involved? It appears to me that there is a certain amount of silo mentality. You are given a brief of improving air quality, but there could be a great opportunity here for the Treasury. Is it engaged in this or not? Rebecca Pow: You touch on a very good point. I want to make it really clear that we are working incredibly closely with the Department of Health on this, and increasingly so, not just through the independent committee we have, the COMEAP, but through a whole range of other ways, not least the new Office for Health Promotion that is being set up, which is going to have tackling inequalities at its heart. Of course, this whole area of how air pollution potentially disproportionately affects people who are vulnerable for a whole range of reasons—because of where many of them happen to live and so on—will have to be factored in.

We are looking at three different scenarios for the whole costing and cost-benefit analysis. You do your baseline, i.e. what would happen and what it would cost if you did not do anything with the PM2.5 targets, then we also are looking at two alternatives. One considers the impact of the sixth carbon budget and the net zero policies, because all of those things are going to affect it. The other one considers our other existing legally binding commitment to reduce air pollution.

We are also going to be including health and non-health benefits from improvements in air quality, so it is exactly what you are touching on, in that those things are all going to be important. We are also proposing a value that co-benefits things like changing greenhouse gas emissions and wider environmental impacts. I cannot say it is straightforward, but definitely the things you are touching on are going to be considered.

Q22 Geraint Davies: Can I ask you about something related? Minister, you know that the health impacts on poorer people, living in more difficult neighbourhoods or in housing near busy roads, is much more severe, although they produce less pollution. In general, urban incinerators tend to be in poorer areas. The Government have a plan now to double the amount of incinerators and the amount of incineration between now and 2030. I was wondering whether you have had any conversations with the Treasury about how we could reduce that incineration in urban environments in order to help public health, and whether there should be taxes on incineration as opposed to just taxes on landfill, which is driving local authorities to incinerate more.

Rebecca Pow: You touch on some interesting points. I want to see some data about whether, as you are suggesting, incinerators are just located in areas where people with low incomes live.

Q23 Geraint Davies: They are not just located there, but they are more likely to be. Rebecca Pow: I am sure you know that our entire waste and resources strategy is moving us to produce less waste and moving us to a whole ethos of repair, reuse and recycle. Incineration is very near the bottom of the hierarchy. All of the measures we are bringing in, many of them through the Environment Bill—the extended producer responsibility, the deposit return, the consistent collections—will produce less waste, so ultimately there will be less going to incineration.

Q24 Geraint Davies: The plan, as you have just said, is to produce less incineration, not more. That is reassuring, because I understood the Government’s plan was to double it. Rebecca Pow: We also operate the incinerators under the best available techniques, and best available techniques would have to be applied in any incinerator, and indeed energy captured. I would want to have a bit more detail on what you are saying, because I am not sure I agree with you.

Q25 Geraint Davies: My understanding was that the Government are planning to double the level of incineration. Rebecca Pow: It might be like that in Wales.

Q26 Geraint Davies: No, they have put a moratorium in Wales, you will be relieved to hear. On incineration and on the capture of nano-particulates, my understanding is that nano-particulates are getting through these filters and there has been evidence from various studies; there is one very well-known one in Italy that found dioxins and heavy metals in children’s toenails, leading to leukaemia. It sounds like you are concerned about not increasing incineration because of the public health problems with it. Is that correct? Rebecca Pow: I do not think I actually said that in so many words. You said that.

Q27 Geraint Davies: No, but you said you wanted to have less incineration. I just wondered whether that was due to public health or climate change. Rebecca Pow: We are moving towards a situation of producing less waste in this country and a circular economy, and that is the exact focus of our resources and waste strategy. That is what the many measures in the Environment Bill will be putting into practice. We do have very strong permitting systems for all of these, whether you have an incinerator or not. It all has to be permitted and all has to be checked and enforced by the Environment Agency. I do not have specific details about the nano-

particulates that you refer to, but I am always open to any information on that if you want to pass it to me.

Q28 Geraint Davies: I certainly will. Thank you very much. May I ask Mr Parish what evidence he has about the contribution of incinerators to particulates in urban environments, in particular in poorer areas? Bill Parish: First, waste incinerators are subject to the industrial emissions directive and are strictly regulated by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency will assess what the process is likely to release into the environment and require the incinerator to put abatement technology in place in order to limit the emissions. They will factor in the proximity of the people who live in the area and the likely exposure of the population to different pollutants that are likely to be released by the incinerator, and they will require monitoring and enforce the provisions if necessary, if the incinerator abatement is failing or they need to do more. They are subject to quite strict regulation already.

Q29 Geraint Davies: So that I am clear on this, are you confident that the Environment Agency is protecting public health? I have heard evidence, in particular from Ulster University, about how nano-particulates penetrate the filters in existing incinerators and are affecting people’s health. Moreover, you mentioned earlier on about background PM2.5 in particular, but obviously we are concerned about any background PM that is toxic, and obviously smaller than PM2.5 is much worse than PM2.5. Are you confident that the background PM nano-particulates from incinerators are not adversely affecting children’s health, in particular, in urban environments as we speak? Bill Parish: The Environment Agency is implementing the requirements as far as possible, for pollution from not just incinerators but all sorts of other industrial processes that can also release dioxins and other harmful substances. This is not unique to incinerators. The issue about nano- particulates or ultra-fine particulates is that, until very recently, we did not know very much about them, because it was just impossible to physically measure them. It is difficult enough to measure PM2.5 as an entity. Because ultra-fine particulates are so small, it is very difficult to find a filtration process that can capture them all. We need to ensure that we have a method by which we are able to monitor the presence of substances in the environment.

I cannot comment on recent reports that you have mentioned about, first of all, how substances might be accumulating in people or, secondly, what the sources of those substances actually are, because domestic combustion releases dioxins and heavy metals as well, if people are not burning clean, well-seasoned wood. If they are burning waste wood that has been treated with substances like copper chrome arsenate or wood preservatives—

Chair: Bill, please could we leave the wood burning until later? We have questions on that in a minute.

Q30 Geraint Davies: Finally, Mr Parish, you did mention that you are looking at density of people in terms of exposure, quite rightly. Given that and given the uncertainties over incineration and the fact that it generates nano-particulates, et cetera, would it not be a good idea to have incinerators not in the middle of cities? The precautionary principle would tell us that it would be better, if there is a risk, to have them elsewhere, in the countryside, so that there is not such immediate exposure to risk. Bill Parish: You have significant point sources of pollution. The further away they are from people, the less people are exposed.

Rebecca Pow: The points you are raising about incinerators, incinerators in Italy and all the rest of it really highlight why it is really important that on the global stage we are playing our part in linking up with other countries and what their emissions are. By chance, I am actually speaking to the Berlin Forum on Chemicals and Sustainability on Thursday. We need to have a dialogue about all of these things. That links especially into the point you were making earlier about the fact that we are not responsible for all pollution; it comes from other places as well. Those are all things that, as a Government, we are really mindful of and indeed, particularly now that we have left the EU, we are playing an increasing role on the chemicals front on the world stage.

Q31 Geraint Davies: Minister, you will be interested, then, in the report in Holland that found, up to five miles from incinerators, hens’ eggs had penetration of dioxins from those incinerators, again underlining the fact that we should not have incinerators in urban environments. I know you are in favour of not more incineration, but perhaps you could think about both having less incineration and not having it in urban environments. Rebecca Pow: What I would say to that, which you know, is that we have a planning system and all of these things have to go through the due process before any incinerator is given the go-ahead. That is also very much down to planning within each local area and their particular focus on how they deal with their waste. I will bring you back to my earlier point: overall, we are actually reducing the total amount of waste that we produce in our society, and that will help.

Q32 Geraint Davies: Would you support a tax on incineration? There is a tax on landfill. That is why the local authorities are ending up burning so much. Would you support a tax on incineration, so that people do not just avoid landfill by burning things? Rebecca Pow: We have a clear waste hierarchy. At the moment, incineration still plays a part in that for the things that you simply cannot dispose of in another way. They generate energy and we are capturing any lost energy. That is the crucial thing: making sure that, if you have to have incinerators, they work in every way, they run under best available techniques and they have the right permit system and the right planning system.

Q33 Robbie Moore: Minister, just following on from that line of questioning,

air pollution most affects urban, lower-income households, even though they are less likely to contribute to it. How will you make sure the polluters pay for the actions that are needed? Rebecca Pow: This is something that obviously we are well aware of. Not always, but often, there are inequalities, potentially in very busy, built-up areas. People with lower income live where there is likely to be more air pollution. It is not necessarily the air pollution that is, if you have health issues, exacerbating them. It will be lots of other things as well, to do with homes, houses, jobs and all of those things.

All of the measures that we are bringing in through the Environment Bill and the clean air strategy, and all the funds that we are directing to clean up the air, whether it is PM2.5 or NOx and the other pollutants, are just basically to clean up the air; they are not necessarily to target people and make them pay for it, as such. We have to bring the whole of society with us to tackle this issue of air pollution, because it affects absolutely everybody. That is really the ethos that we are taking: to bring society with us and have a very special focus on the vulnerable, who might be inadvertently affected more by air pollution through dint of where they happen to live.

What we are doing especially to focus on that is we are looking again through the Environment Bill, which I know you will know about because you were on the Committee. We have committed to reviewing our air quality strategy. Within that, we will be particularly looking at our local air quality management plans and the frameworks for those; that is how the local picture is worked out. We are also looking at whether we can better target what we do, and at how these areas where potentially vulnerable people live are cleaned up and can be monitored more. We have just committed to up the amount for monitoring from £2 million to £8 million, so there is going to be a great deal more monitoring available for all of these areas. We will know exactly what is going on and then how to tackle it.

Q34 Robbie Moore: Minister, do you mind if I just push you on a point that you made there in terms of wanting to bring society with us? That is absolutely the right aspiration, but am I hearing that what you are effectively saying is that it is not the approach of Government to be taking a strategy that specifically targets the polluter that is contributing towards the air pollutants that have been identified? Is it a strategy of bringing measurables in generally, rather than targeted at the polluter? Rebecca Pow: It is a whole range of measures, because of course we are working very closely with transport. We still have the ethos anyway, through all of our general principles, of “polluter pays”, but we are working with the Department for Transport to clean up transport. We are shifting the whole of industry to electric vehicles, to move from more- polluting vehicles to less-polluting vehicles.

Even in agriculture, we are obviously targeting that side so that there are less emissions. There is also our bringing in the ban on coal and the wet wood, which I know the Chair does not want me to talk about yet. These are all factors. We are actually reducing the pollution through the measures that we are introducing. That is out general approach: to bring in all of these different measures.

Q35 Robbie Moore: We have heard, as has been touched on, there are many pollutants that are being distributed, whether it be through incineration or other means: nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, non- methane volatile organic compounds and the like. There is a focus by Government that means that the impact of other pollutants, such as those that I have just mentioned, on public health is not being focused on in ring-fencing targets that are going to be associated with them. Why are the Government proposing that the Environment Bill statutory targets should only be to reduce PM2.5? Rebecca Pow: You touch on an interesting point, but the PM2.5 is in the Bill because all health and medical experts agree that it is the most detrimental to human health. It is the one that is causing the most long- term and short-term problems, so that is the focus right now. Also, we already have a very wide range of legislation relating to all of those other pollutants that you named—the SO2, the non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia—and of course we have our whole clean air fund and strategy for the NO2, which largely comes from transport. That is a £3.8 billion programme, so it is slightly disingenuous to suggest we are not tackling all the other pollutants, because we quite clearly are.

The reason why PM2.5 is specifically named in the Bill is because it is the one that is the most detrimental to human health and is the one that we urgently need to deal with. We are doing it completely in conjunction with our clean air plans, particularly for transport and NO2. Bill might want to expand on that a bit but, basically, that is why PM2.5 is specifically named in the Bill.

Q36 Robbie Moore: Before I bring Bill in, I will ask a quick supplementary on that. With there being so much focus around PM2.5 targets as they are being solely identified within the Environment Bill, how will the Government ensure that the PM2.5 targets do not create perverse behaviours or become the sole focus of efforts to improve air quality, and that there will be a combined approach in terms of approaching other particulate matters and emissions that have been discussed? Rebecca Pow: I hope I have made it clear that we are already doing that. We have our clean air strategy, which actually the WHO itself said was an example for the rest of the world to follow. It is a tremendous document, if you get time to have a look at it. It deals with all of our pollutants. As is becoming clear to us all, there are a great many of them, and none of this is straightforward. It is very complicated. That is why we also have our national emissions ceilings, and we have the EU ambient air quality directive. We rolled the directives over and we have our clean air

strategy. Now we have the extra things that we can bring forward through the Environment Bill.

I hope that demonstrates how seriously the Government are taking this. We are investing billions in this and engaging every expert that we could possibly muster to advise us so that we get this right, because we know how important it is. It is important to human health, and that is why we have to do something about it.

Q37 Chair: In terms of getting rid of NOx, transport will help directly with that. In terms of PMQ, there will still be a lot of particulates from the brakes and other issues to do with vehicles. What is the situation regarding the PMQ as we reduce to electric cars and the like, because it is not quite as simple as all that? Rebecca Pow: I am going to bring Bill in, but you are absolutely right. When we convert to electric, the cars are still going to have tyres. That demonstrates as well that dealing with air pollution is not simple. I will not say it is straightforward to transfer from diesel to electric, but we still have to tackle the air pollution created from these vehicles. All those things are being factored into our modelling as well. We have to deal with it. Bill, do you want to add anything to that?

Bill Parish: There was a question about perverse outcomes. We are managing pollutant mixtures. We do not breathe one pollutant in at a time. They are very complex mixtures. Also, primary pollutants, such as ammonia coming from farming, will convert into ammonium particulates. We cannot just think about the action we need to take on the sources of primary particulates. We also have to look at the sources that convert into secondary particulates. Therefore, it is a matter of taking action on all pollutants at the same time, not just one at a time.

As the Minister has just pointed out, we are still subject to our national atmospheric emissions ceilings or total emission for a number of important pollutants. They will continue to have traction. The UNECE Gothenburg Protocol will no doubt set further stretching targets for all of those different pollutants as well. The reason that particulates are top priority is because, as the Minister said, of the health impacts.

Q38 Derek Thomas: Minister, I want to flip the question around from Rob’s previous one. Rob focused on the PM2.5 in the Environment Bill, but the specific remit of the joint air quality unit, as I understand it, is on nitrogen dioxide, despite the fact that the Government are quite rightly or appropriately focusing on PM2.5 in the Environment Bill. It is confusing for us to see two pieces of important work tackling different pollutants. Can you explain a bit, in response to what Rob and I are raising, why PM2.5 is not a priority for the joint air quality unit as well? Rebecca Pow: It is a good point and I have to admit that it is confusing. Doing all of this is like doing a couple of science A-levels. The reason why PM2.5 is in the Bill is because we already have this system up and

running to tackle the NO2. As you rightly say, the joint air quality unit— JAQU, as they like to call it—was established, and that works between DEFRA and the Department for Transport. I work with Minister Maclean, who is the Transport Minister, on that. That whole system is funded, and that is to tackle the NO2, which is largely from vehicles. Through that system and our clean air fund, we have devoted the £3.8 billion to the NO2 project, to reducing that. Through that system, as you will be well aware, we are introducing clean air zones. We just launched the clean air zone in Bath. Birmingham is about to launch. They are coming thick and fast right across the country. There will be Portsmouth, Bradford and Greater Manchester.

Chair: Minister, we are going to talk about clean air zones in the next question. Rebecca Pow: It is absolutely what Derek is touching on. They are two different projects. That is the NO2 and that is the JAQU. Then we have these other committees, which are the air quality expert group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. Those are the two that are helping advise us on the PM2.5 and all of the health impacts. They very much know what each other is doing, and they are all part of this enormous air pollution landscape that we are determined to tackle.

Q39 Derek Thomas: Over time, we will be able to see what appears a more joined-up or coherent approach right across Government. That takes me on to your point about JAQU. This is DEFRA and DfT. Should there not be other Departments in Government concentrating on PM2.5 as well? Rebecca Pow: Yes, and they are. I am the Minister working with all of these people. I am now working increasingly with the Department of Health. As I touched on earlier, this new Office for Health Promotion is just being set up, with Chris Whitty heading it. That is very much focusing on inequalities within health, but of course the whole air pollution issue will be very much part of that. I know Chris Whitty himself is very determined to tackle the air pollution issue, particularly where it impacts on the vulnerable, as we have discussed previously. That will come under all the different Departments, because other Departments are obviously having to be impacted by it and will have to input into it.

We have to have cross-Government support when we bring in our PM2.5, of course. That has to be a cross-Government decision when we finally set the targets, not just DEFRA telling everyone what to do. I would like it to be DEFRA telling everyone what to do, but everyone has to agree, because it will impact on each different Department in different ways in terms of what they will have to do.

Q40 Derek Thomas: Do you think that there is a risk that some of these things will fall through the net because of so many different Departments taking an approach or having some area of responsibility? Is it a positive thing that JAQU, although it is just two Departments, actually has the job of holding all the Departments to account? Is that effectively how it

works? Rebecca Pow: Someone has to be in charge of it and take the lead. JAQU is working incredibly effectively between the two Departments, DEFRA and the Department for Transport, and making immense progress on delivering on the NO2 programme and these CAZs. Indeed, there are also all of the funds that we have available for local authorities to do other work on monitoring; on schemes to clean up the air in their towns, whether it is changing to different buses and taxis; and all of the funds and grants we have to help them move to cleaner air. That is working effectively. It so relates to transport; that is why the Department for Transport is involved in the JAQU with DEFRA.

It also links into lots of other things, such as the cycling and walking strategies, and then it links in with the Department of Health’s obesity strategy, trying to get everyone fitter. It also links in to the transforming cities fund and the future high streets fund, which is MHCLG. Lots of these things are working on issues that are all related to cleaning up the air.

Derek Thomas: I was pleased to hear that Cornwall has very low air pollution. That may not be the case after this summer, as the whole of the population visits us. Rebecca Pow: Yes, it is the same in Somerset.

Derek Thomas: Thank you very much, Minister, for your focus on this. Q41 Chair: Just before we leave this question, Minister, I am still not convinced by your answers on this one. Why is the joint air quality unit still focusing on NO2 when the focus of the Environment Bill is on PM2.5? When we did our joint inquiry into air quality, we found that it is about getting the whole of Government and the whole of Departments to work together. I am afraid that I am not terribly convinced by your answer so far that we are joining this up as well as we could. Could you be a little more specific on how we are going to concentrate on PM2.5 in the Environment Bill across Government, if we have the joint air quality unit focusing on NO2? Are they also focusing on PM2.5? How are you joining all of these things together? It is not easy but we do need an answer, please. Rebecca Pow: I thought I had been quite clear. JAQU was set up to deal with NO2. We do not need another Department to only do that. I oversee NO2 and PM2.5 in DEFRA, and of course it was a legal requirement that, when it is too high, we bring NO2 within compliance in the shortest possible time. JAQU was set up in order to do that. On NO2, we were under legal infraction. We had to get the NO2 down in areas where it was too high in the shortest possible time to comply legally, and that is why we are bringing in all of these clean air zones. I also just want to correct something. I said that Birmingham is due to come on stream; the CAZ in Birmingham has actually just started.

We have made it very clear about the different range of air pollutants that there are and how complicated it is. That is why we have all of these different strategies for tackling all the main ones and then all the others in between. I hope I have made that clear.

Q42 Mrs Murray: Minister, one of the things that I would like to focus on is health inequality. You have mentioned that you work with the Department for Transport. There are communities in my constituency that a main trunk road goes through. Those residents, my constituents, feel very concerned. They see a massive build-up of traffic on the A38 going through Tideford and Landrake. One of the things I would like to know is why you will not include a health inequality target in the Environment Bill. Rebecca Pow: Cornwall is getting busier and busier as you get more and more popular. We are very much aware of the vulnerability issue. What we have said through the Environment Bill is that we will be reviewing the air quality strategy. When we do that, we will be considering how action can be targeted particularly at the most vulnerable. We will be consulting on that so that we can really get to grips with it. That is a complicated area as well, because so many other things impact on those particular communities, many of whom simply happen to live on busy roads.

We are making it a proper and full focus of our review of the air strategy. As I mentioned earlier, within that we will be reviewing the local air quality management framework. That should help you locally. Your area will be particularly looking at what it is doing in its area. Similarly, we will be reviewing the guidance for those management frameworks. Hopefully we will have even more of a focus on vulnerable groups.

Through the Environment Bill, we are also bringing in a measure whereby other air quality partners can be designated to work closely with local authorities on their air quality action plans. We have just done a call for evidence on that, and we will be consulting on it shortly. At the top of the list of authorities that others want to become partners is Highways England. When all the consulting has been finished, that should mean that Highways England will then work more closely with local authorities on these local road issues.

Although in some places we have some very good arrangements with Highways England, where for example they are putting in speed limits, which helps to reduce emissions, in other areas it has become a bit of a bugbear, if I am honest. Some cities and towns have to work on reducing their NOx in particular. If you cannot bring in the big strategic road to the plan as well, you cannot really tackle it fully. This measure to get new air quality partners designated will be very helpful in tackling exactly what you are getting at.

Q43 Mrs Murray: If I could just continue, you have answered my second question in part. I have noticed that at the moment there does not seem

to be a lot of joined-up working between Government and local councils. I have seen monitoring in some of these communities that are affected, but I have not seen them being encouraged to take action. What steps are the Government taking to engage with the most affected local communities in the local air quality management review—you have answered that partially already—and the setting in the Environment Bill of air quality targets? It is very good to say that local authorities have to monitor it, but we want to see some action. What steps are you taking as a Department to work with local councils and local communities, to make sure that we are addressing the problem and not just highlighting it? Rebecca Pow: It is absolutely crucial that we work closely with our local authorities, because they are the people on the ground who know exactly what is happening. That is why I believe that looking again at the local air quality management frameworks will better align the national picture with the local. There is a lot going on already in terms of liaising with local authorities.

I have mentioned the fund that we have just upped to £8 million, the air quality grant scheme. Local authorities can apply for that. If there is an area, like, for example, the road that you mentioned, where your local authority has the data—it has to be very evidence-led—has done the monitoring and has come up with a plan for how they think they might be able to improve that, they can apply for the fund. DEFRA will look at the proposals, make sure the money is well spent and will deliver what is needed, particularly to improve human health. That is exactly what that fund is there for.

There is the whole of the clean air fund. We have £880 million for the NO2 fund, which is available to local authorities. There are a great many schemes going on across the country. There is close liaison between DEFRA and the Department for Transport, and there is a certain amount of MHCLG involvement, because they link so closely with the local authorities. We are very conscious that we need all those people to work even more closely together. This new extra money that we have for monitoring and modelling will, I believe, really help with what you are touching on as well. A lot of work is going on around where those monitors are going to be placed and where they would be of best use, so we can get back the best data, which can inform what actions we are going to take.

Q44 Mrs Murray: What checks do you carry out to make sure that money is being focused and delivering? Rebecca Pow: JAQU very particularly has a very rigorous and robust scheme for checking on who gets the money, how it is spent and where it goes. When the clean air zones are brought in, in many cases years of work has gone on modelling, with local authorities coming up with proposals and then thrashing out whether that will get the right results in the right time, how it will affect people and whether the community will

be brought on board. There is a huge amount of detailed work that goes on there with JAQU.

Q45 Ian Byrne: Minister, I just want to touch on a report that came out today. The Health Foundation today released a report saying that people under 65 living in the most deprived areas of the UK were more than 3.7 times more likely to die with Covid than people in the richest areas. This echoes Sir Michael Marmot’s evidence to this Committee. You mentioned extensive modelling in answer to the Chair. To what extent is modelling being done on the part that air pollution is playing in this deadly example of the inequality that is rife in this country? What steps are you going to take as a matter of urgency to address what is a matter of life or death for the poorest in our communities? Rebecca Pow: You are talking particularly about deprived aeras and how our monitoring is going to inform us in terms of the vulnerable, inequalities and how they might impact air pollution. I hope I have got that right.

Q46 Ian Byrne: What role does air pollution play in the scandalous statistic that people are 3.7 times more likely to die in a poorer area than a richer area? I would like to know what modelling is being done by the Department and yourself, Minister. Rebecca Pow: You touched on Covid at the beginning, so I was not sure whether you were trying to link it with Covid. Very early on in the Covid pandemic, in DEFRA we commissioned a report to see whether there was a direct link between poor air pollution and Covid, because it looked like there might have been at the very beginning because of the incidence in inner cities.

Chair: Minister, we cannot really hear you very well. Do you want me to suspend for a couple of minutes and have you tap back in? At the moment, we are not really getting sound. We cannot see you anymore either. It would be better if we could see you. Now we can see you again.

Rebecca Pow: I am sorry about this. This is very awkward for everybody. I am very sorry. Where did we get to?

Q47 Chair: It is very much about poorer people in society being hit very hard with poor air quality. Are we concentrating enough effort on getting it sorted out? We talk a lot about environmental matters, but air quality is actually killing people. Where are we, Minister, please? Rebecca Pow: We talked about this a lot. I attended a roundtable the other day with the Green Alliance and an organisation called Choked Up; they raised a lot of these issues. What I will say is that inequalities stack up. What our evidence has been showing us is that, yes, people on low incomes might be seen to be affected by air pollution, but often that is not necessarily going to be only air pollution. It will be because they are also more likely to have existing medical conditions; they live in poorer areas; they have poorer outdoor environments and maybe even poorer

indoor environments; they have less access to jobs, healthy food and green space. All of those things have combined.

As I said just now, we are aware that all of those links stack up, and that is why we are making it an absolute priority to look at these sections of society when we review our air quality strategy. We will look at what actions we can take to help those groups in society so that we can get them the right support from the local authorities, through these funds that are available, and we can focus and target it more than we are, potentially, at the moment.

We are really aware of this; it is on the radar. It is also on the radar of this new Office for Health Promotion, which is tackling inequalities across the board. Any inequalities arising from air pollution will be a particular focus of that new body as well.

Q48 Ian Byrne: Chair, the Minister answered quite a lot of the next question within her answer to Sheryll, certainly around Highways England. Minister, can I just touch on it, just to get clarification for the clerks and for the report? How should conflicts between local councils and national public bodies that affect the achievement of local air quality action plans be resolved? You touched on this before, did you not? Rebecca Pow: I did. I mentioned the fact that we are going to review the guidance that we give local authorities through their local air quality management plans and then look at the whole framework for the plans just to make sure that local authorities are fully logged in to what we are doing nationally as well.

I also want to talk about something that we have not really touched on very much so far. When we are talking about those vulnerable groups, the monitoring and the focusing of our monitoring in the places that will help in particular, it will also be very important that we get the messaging to all these groups right and that we get to the vulnerable groups who need the messaging. We need to highlight to them when there might be high air pollution incidence, what to be aware of and what action they could take. We have a whole system of alerts. We have the UK AIR website. We have our daily air quality index, which is very comprehensive, if you look at it now. We are aware that potentially that could be simplified and could then be targeted more at these groups. It would be very beneficial for them to have a lot more what I call user-friendly info about the effects of air pollution.

Q49 Ian Byrne: I just want to push on that point. I am slightly confused. You are saying that individuals can take actions regarding air pollution. Rebecca Pow: It is more about being aware. It is also so that our health professionals know what advice to give people about what they should do and so that they themselves are also aware of the impacts of air pollution, potentially more than they have been previously.

That was actually something that the coroner pointed out, did he not, when he responded in his matters arising in the very sad report on the Ella Kissi-Debrah case? That was very much about the communications to groups of people, and particularly vulnerable groups, and whether that could be improved. We have absolutely taken that on board, and we are working to review the daily air quality index and our UK AIR website.

The chairs of those two expert groups—the air quality expert group and the COMEAP group—are very involved in looking at all of the sites where we provide information to people and how we could improve them. We have set up a sub-group for that too.

Q50 Ian Byrne: Minister, can I just finish? The Chair is giving me the evil eye. On that point you were talking about in terms of the direction of travel, it is like individualism. Rebecca Pow: Yes. Q51 Ian Byrne: It is much like what the Health Secretary was saying yesterday about personal choices. Is that what you are trying to say regarding air pollution? Is it down to the individual? Surely it is an issue that we should discuss; it is a national issue. Rebecca Pow: Yes. I hope I have made clear that we have all of our plans, frameworks, strategies, funding and all of that, but people also need to be aware of the impacts of air pollution and aware that it can affect our health. You also need to give them the clear information. We already have a lot of apps and alerts that people can get, but it is about making sure they are the right ones.

Q52 Ian Byrne: Yes, if they have access to digital technology, which many of the people in these communities have not. Rebecca Pow: Yes, that is absolutely right. What has been very clearly highlighted is that you do not want to scare them; you want them to know enough. It is a bit like when we have the pollen count report with the weather forecast. We let people who are affected by pollen know that—

Q53 Ian Byrne: It is a good example, Minister. I would just say that what would scare me is the fact that if I live in a poor area I am 3.7 times more likely to die than if I lived in a rich area. That is what would scare me. Rebecca Pow: That is why we are getting all these measures in place to make sure that we are clearing up the air everywhere, but that we are particularly cleaning up, with the exposure target, in the areas where the most people live and where it is most concentrated. In all of the workstreams we are putting in place, I hope we have indicated that that is the direction of travel, and that we are really conscious about those areas. We do not want people to be scared about living in those areas; we want to help them and we want to clean it up.

Q54 Chair: Before we leave this question, when we had the Mayor of Bristol here giving evidence, he told us that we have the M32 going straight into the centre of Bristol. He has no control over the Highways Agency and no control over what happens with the pollution from that traffic. Not only is it about Government joining together; it is also about joining together with local authorities. In some ways, Minister, it is no good passing back some of the responsibility to local government if we do not actually work with them better than we are at the moment. I am not saying that this is DEFRA; I am saying this is the Department for Transport and Highways England. How are you going to sort that out? Overall, DEFRA is responsible for air quality even though it is dealt with by other Ministries and the local authorities. The mayor really wants to know how he is going to be able to have some impact on the M32 and what comes off the M32 straight into the middle of Bristol. You would know the M32 pretty well, I suspect. Rebecca Pow: I know the M32 extremely well, having spent many years of my working life working in Bristol. Years and years ago, the traffic was atrocious. Bristol is one of the areas for which we are working on bringing a clean air zone.

I hope the Mayor of Bristol and you will be very pleased that we are working on exactly the issue he is talking about, which is why, through the Environment Bill, we are bringing in this ability for the Secretary of State to designate what we are calling air quality partners. That will mean other bodies with whom the local authorities will then be able to work much more closely on their air quality. We have just finished a call for evidence on who the partners should be and who the top favourites are, and you will not be surprised to hear that one of the top authorities that everybody wants to be more closely involved in this is Highways England. We will be properly consulting on that in the next few months, with a view to them playing a much bigger part.

Q55 Chair: Minister, I am sorry to interrupt, but we have to get to the crux of this. When you say “the Secretary of State”, is this the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or is it the Secretary of State for Transport? Who is actually going to make this decision? At the moment, we are going around in circles on this one and, dare I say it, it needs to be nailed down. Rebecca Pow: It is being nailed down in the Environment Bill. It is to deal with exactly what the Mayor of Bristol is talking about. We have faced this ourselves in bringing in the clean air zones around the country. We really need, for example, Highways England, which is in charge of the strategic routeways, to play its part. Taking exactly the example of Bristol, it is no good bringing in a clear air zone at the bottom of the M32 and having absolutely no control of that road that brings all that traffic into it, with all of those houses around it. This will be a big step forward in terms of tackling exactly what you have put your finger on.

Q56 Chair: When the Environment Bill is finalised, will that be September? Will we be expecting action straightaway on this, Minister? Where are we? Is it a long way down the road, literally? Where is it, Minister? Rebecca Pow: No, it is not a long way down the road. We are making very good progress on this. As I said, we have just done the call for evidence. The Environment Bill is still working its way through the House of Lords, but we are working on this already, before we have even got Royal Assent.

As I said, we will be consulting on the Highways England issue in the autumn. As and when that is all agreed, which will not be long away, Highways England will have to be brought in formally as a partner to work on these local air quality management plans, which the local authorities will all be working on. It should be incredibly helpful and constructive. I do not know whether Bill wants to add anything to that, but we are well aware of what you are touching on, and we have taken measures pretty swiftly to address it.

Q57 Chair: Bill, would you like to add a few comments to the Minister’s remarks, please? Bill Parish: The whole point of this measure in the Bill is to get different public bodies collaborating much more closely at a local level to address this very specific issue. Highways England is at the top of the list.

Chair: We look forward to the full co-operation of Highways England with the local authorities, DEFRA and the Government to make this happen. We wait with great interest.

Q58 Rosie Duffield: Should all local authorities now accelerate the rollout of clean air zones, given the rebound in car use and the depressed level of public transport use following the easing of lockdown restrictions? I say “all local authorities” because Mr Parish has already said that there are no safe limits. Presumably all local authorities should be looking at this no matter what their targets are. Rebecca Pow: All local authorities have to be mindful of air quality. They have to come up with air quality action plans and, as I keep mentioning, local air quality management plans. All local authorities have a duty to do these things. Very many of them, right across the country, have already applied for Government funds to roll out measures to help with air pollution, and a great many more will be applying, not least to get access to do more monitoring but also to get this air quality grant scheme, which we have now upped to £8 million.

Q59 Rosie Duffield: Can I just ask Mr Parish something as well? I have not really heard much about this idea that the winds and proximity to the continent can make that much difference to levels of pollution in areas like mine, because we are so close to France, which you mentioned. How effective would a clean air zone be at getting the particulates down?

Bill Parish: It really depends on the local circumstances. The Minister mentioned our population exposure reduction target. If local authorities, which are often hard-pressed financially, are already compliant with existing legal limit values, the incentive to do more in the area to reduce pollution is probably not that strong. The point of our work to revise the UK air quality strategy is to reset and rebuild our relationship with local authorities to ensure that they are better equipped to identify opportunities to do a bit more and to provide the tools to identify how they can approach that.

A local authority needs to focus on the things that it can do if the background pollution in their area is higher. What we want to do is equip them with the tools to identify specific measures, again targeted where the most people live.

Q60 Rosie Duffield: Can I just ask another thing? If an authority is building thousands and thousands of new homes in quite a small city with only one or two routes in and out, thousands above what the Government are saying their target is for building new homes, like mine, will that presumably accelerate the need for all of these measures really quickly? Local plans are being done now about new homes. Bill Parish: The Minister mentioned earlier the planning process. The planning process needs to factor in the air quality implications and the infrastructure needed to service all of those homes. Some of those issues need to be addressed proactively through the planning process to ensure the planning solution minimises an escalation of air pollution and to identify where there might be opportunities to ensure that the transport infrastructure is having a minimal impact.

We must not forget about all the other sources of pollution that might be present in the area as well. We need to look at all the sources together as opposed to just focusing on road transport.

Rebecca Pow: There is also our net zero strategy and so on, and the input from MHCLG and the Department for Transport. There is this move to cycling and walking and the £2 billion fund devoted to that. There is a big emphasis in the transforming cities fund on public transport and clean, green transport. We are factoring all of those measures into new sustainable developments for our green recovery. That is a big focus of this Government now.

Q61 Chair: Minister, one of the issues with clean air zones is that you can concentrate on areas such as inner cities where you have a real problem. Of course, one of the problems that we found when we did a joint inquiry before was that a lot of the older vehicles are in these areas because people cannot necessarily afford to have newer vehicles. It is very laudable to have all of these wonderful processes that we have in place with targets and everything else, but are we going to target the people in these areas? They are stressed and low-income areas. It is no

good saying that they must all drive electric cars. They may still need their vehicles; they may have vans for businesses, and very often older vans. A lot of the small businesses in those areas cannot necessarily convert their vehicles. All of these things need to be sorted. Otherwise, you can tick as many boxes as you like and have as many policies as you like, but it will not necessarily help the people in those areas with their air quality. Do you have a concentration of effort in these areas for the clean air zones? Are you going for clean air overall? What is your actual strategy? Rebecca Pow: We do have a strategy. That is why I work so closely with Minister Maclean. Exactly to the point you have highlighted, some of these things will cost organisations and businesses. That is why we have funds, through our clean air scheme, and we work with local authorities. Each of them is individual and they all have different ways they want to tackle this, but there are funds available. A lot of them are upfront funds, before you bring in the CAZ, to spend on the hackney carriages, the buses, the cabs, the vans or whichever group the local authority’s modelling suggests would best be targeted. They have grants and funds that they can offer out so that people can upgrade their vehicles. I am really mindful of that. You do not want to penalise society.

That is why we keep talking about bringing society along with us. We have to do that, and we have funds available through the clean air zone funding to do exactly what you are saying. In many cases, it is not the private cars that are being targeted; it is these groups such as cabs and buses. We are working with all the relevant motor associations to bring all those people on board and to make sure they are not penalised and that they have the right funding to help them do it. That is really important, exactly as you say.

Leeds was a good example. They did all their modelling for a clean air zone, but in the end they used their money to swap to hydrogen buses. I think I am right in saying it was hydrogen buses. Then they did not need to bring in any of the other measures; they did not even need to bring in the CAZ. There are a lot of different ways to do it, and each area is tackling it in a slightly different way, according to how they think it would best work with their businesses and their communities.

Q62 Dr Hudson: Thank you, Minister and Mr Parish, for being before us today. Minister, you have touched on this in some of your previous answers in terms of greener alternatives and active travel. Given that cycling at the moment is only around February 2020 levels and that we have heard that public transport use is markedly down, are you concerned that the pandemic is not leading to the hoped-for structural change in how people travel? Do you have concerns about that? Some people were hoping that we would get some good benefit out of this dreadful pandemic. Perhaps the rebound back into cars is not helping with that. Do you have concerns on that, Minister?

Rebecca Pow: I am working very closely with the Minister for Transport, Rachel Maclean. This is really her portfolio. Initially, of course, car use did go down, did it not? As you say, it has gone back up again, and slightly fewer people are using public transport.

We have a big drive through all of our initiatives, linking in to our clean air zones and the obesity strategy in the Department of Health, for more active travel and more cycling and walkways. There is funding there. There is a £2 billion cycling and walking fund. You need to get the structures in place so that people know it is safe to do these things. A lot of people, particularly mums with kids, want to know that they are safe. If we can get the networks in, that will make a big difference.

We are working very closely with MHCLG on sustainable development. This is about good places to live that have green spaces, walkways, cycleways, plants, trees and all of those things that give us the health and wellbeing benefits. There is a big emphasis right across Government—I am on a ministerial group working on that—to build on these things, because we know the benefits. You have probably all noticed that during the lockdown. We need to get the structures in place. We are putting the funding behind it to get people to take part in these methods of active travel. They are wins all the way around, are they not?

Q63 Dr Hudson: I am encouraged to hear that you are talking about this on a cross-Government level, liaising with Minister Maclean and MHCLG as well. Are you optimistic with that cross-Government approach that there still is an opportunity to grasp the change in behaviour? People are realising the benefits of walking; they are realising the benefits of cycling. Do you feel an optimism that Government can still grab that and help confirm that change in behaviour to create an increase in this active travel before people get back to their different ways of life? Rebecca Pow: I am optimistic. You might think I am touching on slightly wider things, but through the Environment Bill every local authority will have to do a local nature recovery strategy. Every development will also have to put back 10% more nature than was there when they started. We are doing more nature-based solutions for flood control.

What I am trying to highlight is that we will have much greener, more pleasant places to live, which people will then be walking through, cycling through and actively engaging in. It will all link up. Do not forget that this Government have put a massive emphasis on reopening old railway stations or creating new ones. I am working very hard on one in my own constituency in Wellington, in conjunction with the Chair. We are doing one in Wellington and one in Cullompton. It really touches on what you are saying. That will get people out of their cars. We have done all our modelling for that, and it is looking good in terms of the numbers of people who will get out of their cars. All of these things will also help air quality.

Q64 Dr Hudson: I totally agree. Up in my part of the world we are working

on a similar scheme to reopen Gilsland station as well. We can draw some good out of this. Rebecca Pow: As the Chair will know, we have massively booming housing estates in Wellington, but all of them have to have factored in the cycleways and the walkways to the rail station. We are trying to move people out of their cars to use the rail station. I truly believe that, if we get it right, they will do that.

Chair: Congratulations, Minister, on getting Wellington station and Cullompton station into our evidence session this afternoon.

Rebecca Pow: I hope you agree with me.

Chair: I do agree with you entirely, of course, on that particular issue.

Q65 Geraint Davies: I want to ask about wood burning, because we have heard that wood burning is nearly 40% of PM2.5. I was just wondering why the Government did not do more to stop wood burning, in particular in urban environments, possibly with a ban or a tax. I know it has reduced wet-wood burning, but what more is planned to eliminate or reduce wood burning in urban environments? Rebecca Pow: As I am sure you know, a large amount of evidence was gathered and advice sought. We have targeted the burning of coal and wet wood, because this is the major contributor in many particularly urban areas to PM2.5. It was an area that could be tackled, and we worked very closely with the industry on this. We brought through the guidance on how dry the wood has to be and what moisture content is okay. It has to be well-seasoned wood. You need a certificate to sell the wood. The companies that sell it have to have all the right certification. It was an area that was highlighted as a really important area to tackle, particularly in urban areas. We brought through legislation. It came into force in May. There is an extended period for bringing it in fully. It should make a big difference, in urban areas in particular.

Through the Environment Bill, we have also brought in some measures whereby it will be much easier for local authorities to enforce laws on smoke emissions. At the moment, it is quite arduous and complicated for them to tackle it if people are illegally burning in a smoke control area. They have to go to court and it takes a long time. Now it is more an upfront fine system. We believe that will really help the whole issue around producing PM2.5.

Q66 Geraint Davies: I have noticed—this is a personal observation—that very often there are huge piles of wood being sold at petrol stations. It seems that wood burning is on the increase, not the decrease. Should the Government not do more to ban wood burning in urban environments altogether? What is your view on wood burning for power? It strikes me that wood burning for power is burning a carbon store, so it is not great for climate

change. It is obviously bad for health if it is anywhere near to a populated area. Perhaps that should be banned as well. Starting with domestic wood burning in urban environments, would you consider pressing for a complete ban? People are simply burning more wood. We could even tax it, because it is so cheap as well. Rebecca Pow: We believe that the steps we have introduced will go a long way towards tackling this issue. This is why we tackled the issue of wet wood. If you have seen wet wood burning, Geraint, you know just how smoky it is.

Geraint Davies: I agree about wet-wood burning.

Rebecca Pow: That is just in the room, let alone going out of the chimney. That is why we tackled that and that is why we have really clear guidance on how dry wood needs to be if you do burn it. You touched on sales in garages. We have set limits on the bag size and there has to be certification on there to say that it is exactly the right amount and dryness, effectively. We have tackled that.

Q67 Geraint Davies: Why do we not just ban it altogether? Rebecca Pow: You touched on how lots of people are putting in wood- burning stoves and you have to bring society with you on all these things. I do not know how many letters you got from your constituents about the banning of wet wood. I had a lot of correspondence on that, asking why we were doing even that. It is an education thing. We are doing it on health grounds. That is why we are doing it.

Q68 Geraint Davies: We had a lot of letters about banning smoking indoors—that has saved thousands and thousands of lives—but it was the right thing to do. Should we not ban burning wood, given that it is 40% of PM2.5 in urban environments? We have just heard that we need to save lives. Rebecca Pow: We have smoke control zones, as you know. That is why we took action to bring in the SI on wet wood and the coal ban. That was a really significant step. I do not know whether Bill wants to add to that.

Q69 Geraint Davies: Bill, why has wood burning gone up despite the so-called action on wet wood? Bill Parish: It is very difficult to estimate exactly how much wood people use. We have had a lot of engagement with the wood-burning community and the wood-stove industry to try to get our numbers reasonably accurate.

Geraint, you are right that wood burning is a popular pastime. It is difficult to impose a complete ban at this point. As the Minister set out, there are two things here. First, there is making sure that the fuel used is as clean as possible; secondly, we can ensure that chimney sweeps and wood merchants, et cetera, are able to explain to customers the best

ways of using their wood-burning stoves as cleanly as possible. The way you set the stove up, lay the fire, light it and everything is just as important as the fuel you are using.

This is a conversation that we will be having more once we go to consultation about our PM2.5 targets. As you say, although there is some debate about the exact contribution of wood burning to our overall PM2.5 emissions, it is a major source of pollution. In an urban environment, it is not necessarily needed or required if houses are already networked to the grid.

If we wanted to drive down levels of particulate matter in a city like London to really low levels, we would have to take more action on domestic combustion. That is the reality. We will need to address how we do that in our consultation, because it is an option for action. You cannot have really clean air without doing some fairly tough things like banning or controlling how wood burning is carried out in an urban environment as well as measures on traffic, et cetera. We will be having a bigger public debate about this when we are consulting next year.

Q70 Geraint Davies: I guess you would accept that most people with wood- burning stoves in urban environments, in particular in London, already have central heating. I am sure we all enjoy an open fire—there is no denying that—but collectively this is causing a major public health issue. Presumably, there is a case for banning it. Bill Parish: There is certainly a case for addressing how it is done. We get mail from people who are at the end of their tether about wood burning and their neighbours’ practices. That is why we have changed the way that local authorities can enforce measures at a street level.

Wood burning in an urban environment is not an essential way for people to keep warm if they already have central heating. This is why we need to bring society with us in explaining our options for the different and tougher measures you need to put in place to drive down PM2.5 concentrations.

Q71 Chair: There is one thing that I would like to ask you, Bill. Wood burning is very seasonal. Do you see a massive difference in the air quality in the winter compared to the summer? Wood burners cannot probably be blamed for much pollution in the summer. Have you done any detailed work in the cities on that? Bill Parish: Our monitoring networks, in particular the work carried out by King’s College London, are able to identify the contribution of wood burning in the city. It is noticeable that during cold weather you get bigger spikes of particulate-matter concentrations on Friday and Saturday nights, when it is more likely that people are lighting their stoves. We also get huge spikes on fireworks night around the country.

Our monitoring network is able to detect the contribution that wood burning makes in cold weather and how you get those temporal spikes

during the week when people are more likely to light their stoves. By measuring the black carbon, you can pin that down to the contribution that wood burning specifically is making.

Q72 Chair: London councils have issued no fines in the last five years for the use of wood-burning stoves in smoke control areas. Do local authorities have sufficient funds and powers to take action against this form of pollution? Minister, do they have any desire to do so? Rebecca Pow: I touched on that just now. That is why we brought this measure through in the Environment Bill: to give them more effective powers to be able to take action. Previously, it was very longwinded. Bill can correct me, but I think you could just say, “Are you using the wrong kind of fuel? You are emitting too much smoke”. If they said, “No, we are not”, that was the end of that.

Now, they have more rights. They can go into someone’s home and look, and they can issue fines. They do not have to go through the arduous process of going through a court case. The idea is that they will have more effective powers at their fingertips, as a local authority, to make sure that these smoke control areas are working effectively.

Q73 Chair: Your argument at the moment is that the law that is in place is not fit for purpose, and you are convinced that something that is in the Environment Bill will make it fit for purpose. Surely it is up to local authorities in London or elsewhere to take action. I am not sure that they want to take action. How do you make sure that happens? Rebecca Pow: I believe they do want to take action. A lot of consultation and discussion has gone on in order to come up with this measure. It will make it more effective for them in policing and controlling this and bringing people to account. That is why it is in the Environment Bill. We think it will be effective. Bill, do you want to add to that?

Bill Parish: We made this adjustment in the Bill having consulted with local authorities. This was the major barrier for many environmental health officers to taking effective action; it was just too onerous for them to take criminal steps.

Again, this is part of an ongoing dialogue with local authorities. Once this new arrangement is in place, combined with the wider action that local authorities need to consider to bring particulate matter down where lots of people live, there might be more appetite to use the available powers, if that really helps bring the PM2.5 concentrations down.

Q74 Chair: My final question is linked back to the one that Geraint asked and the answer from Bill Parish. At the moment, Minister, you and I represent constituencies that have many solid-wall properties and many older properties that need a very positive form of heat. If you have an ambient temperature or an ambient heat, it dissipates and you never get warm. We are off-grid and we cannot get gas. Therefore, why is it that we still

allow wood burning to go on in the cities where we have particular problems with air quality? Why do we not just simply ban it in cities and allow those in solid walls and others in the country who are off-grid to still use wood burners? There does not seem much sense in having wood burning in the cities. I know it is easy for me to say that, representing a constituency that is well out of London, but is there not a real need now to ban wood burning in cities? Rebecca Pow: I am not sure whether that was addressed to Bill.

Q75 Chair: It was definitely addressed to you, Minister. It is a political decision at the end of the day, so do not pass that one to Bill. It is a political decision. Rebecca Pow: I thought you named him. The point is that it is easy for you to say that because you live in a rural area, as do I. With all these measures, we have to bring society with us. As Bill has said many times, these are very complicated decisions that impact on society.

I believe that, once we have set our target on PM2.5 and particularly that exposure target, it will make even more of a case for looking at and making these very difficult decisions about whether, for example, wood- burning stoves should be banned in cities where there is a very dense population. All of these things will have to come under the microscope.

We are taking steps to lead us down this road and tackle air pollution, particularly PM2.5. We are going to have to make some really difficult decisions. Into that space too will have to come things like, for example, street markets or barbequing. All of those things are things that potentially will need to be looked at, if we are going to be very serious about tackling PM2.5 and getting it down to a level, as far as we can, that is much safer for human health.

Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you for your answers this afternoon. Air quality is a very wide-ranging subject. Of course, it goes across Government, it goes to local authorities and it is up to all of us to try to get it sorted. We appreciate the breadth of the questions this afternoon. Thank you very much to Bill for some good and detailed answers on how difficult it is to deal with forms of air quality and PM2.5 as well. Thank you very much for some good technical answers. It will give us some very good evidence that we will be able to put in our report. Thank you both very much for coming this afternoon. Thank you very much to members for their time and questions.